Gay Marriage

Judge Orders Colorado Baker to Make Wedding Cakes for Gay Couples

Or face fines

|

A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

NEXT: FBI Can Remotely Operate Laptop Cameras Secretly

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All the bakeries and florists and caterers and photographers that people are wailing and gnashing their teeth about? They aren’t in the business of enforcing moral codes or providing spiritual guidance, they exist to MAKE MONEY. And as such they are obligated to comply with civil rights laws, whether those civil rights law protect people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

    Perhaps Christians who believe that existing civil rights laws are too burdensome should file suit to have those laws overturned. Who knows, maybe they’ll be successful! Maybe the Supreme Court will determine that civil rights laws interfere with religious freedom and freedom of association. Then we can go back to the days when landlords could refuse to rent to Muslims, and restaurants could turn away Blacks. Christian business owners would be allowed to ask prospective customers which religion or sexual orientation they are, and then pick and choose which customers to serve, and which to turn away.

    You could even call it “American Exceptionalism!”

    1. Bullshit! Fuck you! You statist piece of crap. A business owner Christian or not should have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish. Fucking fascist.

      1. Isn’t the anonymity of the internet wonderful?! Someone you don’t know can tell you to go F yourself without facing any consequences or repercussions whatsoever. Whereas if they said the same thing to someone face to face they would probably get in a big fight, and physically.

        Human psychology is interesting indeed. Someone disagrees with someone about something, and instead of simply stating that they disagree, find it necessary to become profane.

        Which means that they doubt their own premise to begin with, or somehow believe that telling the other person to go F him/her self, that the use of name calling demolishes the enemy himself.

        It’s like little children who hold up their hands in front of their eyes and actually believe that makes them invisible if they can’t see the other person. Unbelievable!!!

        1. “Which means that they doubt their own premise to begin with, or somehow believe that telling the other person to go F him/her self, that the use of name calling demolishes the enemy himself.”

          Or they think that their opponent’s stated premise is so stupid and that the correct position is so self evident, that any contrarian position is intentonal trolling or purposeful ignorance, deserving only derision.

          “It’s like little children who hold up their hands in front of their eyes and actually believe that makes them invisible if they can’t see the other person.”

          If you already knew this about your post, as you make clear you did, then why make it?

          1. Because I felt like it. Have a nice day. Nice posting with you ace.

            1. Wish we could say the same waste of space.

              1. Don’t like my comments?! Dial 1 800 EAT POOP

                1. Martin Bashir is that you?

          2. “Or they think that their opponent’s stated premise is so stupid and that the correct position is so self evident, that any contrarian position is intentonal trolling or purposeful ignorance, deserving only derision.”
            Exactly.

            Just for the record: I would also support the freedom of the business owners if the roles were reversed. i.e. If the business owners were homos and refused service to straights because they did not want to would be fine by me. Freedom is a 2 way street. Don’t scream for it and then scream to have it quelled for someone else.

            1. Don’t like my comments? Dial 1 800 EAT POOP

      2. Yes, Vince, I’m sure you’d love to go back to those good ol’ days when lunch counters could refuse to serve Blacks. Welcome to the 21st Century.

        1. Says the guy who wants to enslave people.

          1. Let’s force people to labor against their will. For Freedom?!

    2. -1 for no mention of Somalia
      -1 for no mention of roadz

    3. Perhaps your mother was related to your father.

    4. They don’t serve YOU asshole.

      If you don’t like it go to another BAKER.

    5. When conscripted into military service, ordered to commit atrocities, you will just go along with it since you are in the business of war after all, not of enforcing moral codes.

      But wait, this country has an exception for conscientious objection.

      If only there were one for a baker who finds homosexual marriage absolutely repulsive and want no part of it. but otherwise does no harm to those who wish to practice it.

      Charlie, your use of force to enforce your morals is not a conscience, please grow one.

    6. They aren’t in the business of enforcing moral codes or providing spiritual guidance, they exist to MAKE MONEY. And as such they are obligated to comply with civil rights laws, whether those civil rights law protect people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

      If they aren’t in the business of enforcing moral codes then why do you suggest that they’re obligated to enforce moral codes that YOU like?

      1. DEAR FREE SOCIETY:

        As businesses, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, pure and simple.

        If you don’t like civil rights laws that protect minorities from discrimination, work to repeal them.

        1. People aren’t obligated to abide by immoral laws, shithead. I know that bothers modern slavers like yourself.

        2. It’s moral because the law says so!

        3. As a resident of Colorado for 20 years, I think I might have noticed when the state added sexual orientation to the “suspect class” list. I’m pretty sure Lakewood doesn’t have a law prohibiting discrimination against gays. Maybe I missed something working 70 hour weeks, but I doubt it. We’re not exactly San Francisco here.

      2. Its wrong to force a owner of a business to sell or provide a service to someone. If an owner of a restaurant doesn’t like blacks or Hispanics he has the right to not serve them just like they have the right to protest out side his business because he is a racist ahole.

        1. “If an owner of a restaurant doesn’t like blacks or Hispanics he has the right to not serve them.

          Not according to the U.S Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you have a problem with it, work to have it repealed. I’m sure you’ll make the cover of “White Power” magazine.

          1. That provision is wrong, shitheel. But sure, go ahead and argue that being anti-slavery is racist.

  2. So, in the context of personal liberty, freedom of association, and right to own (and dispose of, or not) property, how can we justify compelling a cake decorator to make one, for any or no reason at all? What sort of a “civil right” applies here?

  3. Sounds like this lucky couple just ordered a delicious chocolate and dogshit cake to me.

    And fuck this judge

    “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

    Costs to society, hurt feelings? Fuck you, shop somewhere else.

    1. Sounds like this lucky couple just ordered a delicious chocolate and dogshit cake to me.

      To the couple: Srirarcha cake. Limberger frosting. Enjoy.

      To the baker: Business is so good you can turn away work?

      To the judge: Freedom of association. Heard of it?

      1. “To the couple: Srirarcha cake. Limberger frosting. Enjoy.

        I’m sure the bakery in question will do just that. It will be interesting from a public relations standpoint.

        1. They already lost the PR battle. I have no problem with their business going to shit, but I do have a problem with the state telling them how to run their business.

    2. Boy, I’d love to have a judge order you to serve me. Yum.

  4. I wouldn’t want to eat anything someone was forced to make for me. Seems like you would be asking for a really bad dining experience.

    1. No doubt the bakery will do exactly what you suggest.

  5. I’d make the shittiest cake.

    Fuck you.

    1. Hello there Rufus Dufus. Does “the shittiest cake” mean that you would actually take a dump in the mix, and then make the cake so sweet that no one would realize they were eating your stuff?

      Well, there you go folks. It all goes to show what people think is important these days. People are slaughtered every day in wars, people starve to death in famines, and so on, but Americans are concerned about someone making or not making a cake for some gay guys. Before this, it was the Chick Filet or whatever the hell it is called, saying they would not like to serve gays.

      So who gives a shit. Well, Rufus does because he is going to start a bakery and shit in the mix, but pass it off to people’s weddings he does not approve of. This is what is really important in our world isn’t it?

      1. Yes. Just to piss you off, I’d make a special mix just for you.

        Rufus Dufus. Cute.

        Listen pal. I don’t condone the baker but try and look at the bigger picture here – snap, snap.

        1. I think you know the exact part of you anatomy that you can shove your comments in. Have a nice day A Wipe.

      2. Before this, it was the Chick Filet or whatever the hell it is called, saying they would not like to serve gays.

        Yeah, that’s not what happened at all. It was their COO’s opposition to gay marriage that caused all the progtards to blow a gasket. Try to know what the fuck you’re talking about next time, kthx.

        1. Don’t like my comments?! Dial 1 800 EAT POOP and then go F yourself for good measure. Got it!!??

    2. “I’d make the shittiest cake.”

      I’m sure you would. You’d lose your business in the process, but at least you’d have a chuckle. Good for you.

      1. That’s the point, Charlie. He didn’t want the business in the first place so it’s a wash.

        Again, I think everyone on this site would acknowledge he’s a prick but it’s not our place to interfere.

        You’re playing statist and the couple should just move on like I do here in Quebec. When I see a “ici on parle en francais’ sticker on the door of a store they’re basically telling me to fuck off since they won’t serve me in English.

        Guess what? I take my business elsewhere. They can go fuck themselves.

  6. The Constitution says we can force someone to make us cake? Hell, I want cake! Where’s my effing cake?

    1. Rufus will bake you a cake with his new special recipe.Don’t worry about anything.

      1. Let’s go over something here.

        1) Baker chooses to not sell to customer.
        2) Customer takes him to court.
        3) Court sides with customer.
        4) Customer will get cake from baker who doesn’t want to make cake.
        5) Baker doing something against his will.
        6) Baker under no obligation to make the cake to best of his abilities.

        If I were the customers I wouldn’t go and get the cake there.

        It’s quite stupid how you took it to mean literally make a cake with shit when all I meant was to make a subpar cake. If the guy wants to lose business that’s his problem.

        Smart alec.

    2. This thread is just begging for Epi.

  7. my neighbor’s mother makes 63 BUCKS every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay check was 15302 BUCKSjust working on the laptop for a few hours. Learn More Here
    ===========================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ===========================

  8. Yay slavery.

    1. Yeah, just imagine: A White-owned restaurant being forced to serve Black customers. It’s just SLAVERY for the poor White owners! How my heart doth BLEED.

      1. Ah, there it is. Slavery. What is it with you Yanks and liberals in particular about this obsession with slavery?

        Yes, it was an evil thing but jesus christ, slavery OF ALL RACES is a common feature in world history. Unfortunate but that’s how it is.

        Here’s the thing. Maybe laws forced people to comply but that doesn’t mean A) the law solved the problem of racism and B) it would have dissipated or disappeared altogether without said laws.

        Invoking slavery in this case is somewhat misguided. Gays are not slaves. These two happened on a guy who just happens to think this way. FREE LIFE. It’s not like there are other bakers around I’m sure.

        Why does everything have to become an issue?

        And fuck their feelings. We all face bad stuff on some level. Go and buy a fucking cake somewhere else. Do they really want to give this guy money after all this?

        And my point about the ‘shitty cake’ was to point out the fact this judgment forces a man to do something he doesn’t want to do IN HIS OWN BUSINESS. Whether he loses business is irrelevant – he takes that risk.

        Understand?

        Sheesh.

        1. aren’t other bakers.

        2. DEAR RUFUS:

          It was Mr. “Free Society” who raised the issue of slavery, not me.

          1. My bad. Apologies. Still stands though.

            1. CHA has an entirely DIFFERENT obsession with slavery. He only wants to enslave people who won’t serve everyone. Being against modern slavery is racist, you see.

              1. It’s amazing – for a group of people who now use feudalism as a metaphor for modern capitalism = they can’t see how the state enslaves people. Corporations can’t coerce squat but the government…

                What’s so hard to see about this?

  9. Why is so hard for people to take a objective view about the issue here. It has nothing to do with the baker and customer, it is forcing someone to engage in commerce with another person(s). I don’t agree with the baker, but if he doesn’t want to bake someone a cake for any reason, they should not be forced to. Conversely, if a business only wants to serve gays, I don’t give a shit.

  10. There are fundamental differences between deny housing or other services based on race, and not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple.
    First, housing is need, a wedding cake is not. Second, one can identify “non-white” at a glance, not so much homosexuality (excepting the flamers, of course :))

    But here is the big difference: Laws against discrimination, whether wise or not, were deemed necessary because a huge portion of the country were basically still fighting the Civil War. Jim Crow laws were purposely enacted to keep the black man in a state of second class citizenship. These laws were part of the CONTINUED insurrection of the South.
    Whether the laws enacted against racial discrimination were good laws or not, it is beyond ridiculous to compare the status of gays in Denver with the plight of blacks in the old Confederacy, where they were still treated as slaves and were terrorized, beaten, and killed, while not only did the authorities not aid them, but usually were one of the offending parties.

  11. One thing the progs have promised us is that their shove-down-your-throat stance to gay rights will not interfere with freedom of religion and this is usually insured by saying that churches would never have to perform gaymarriage ceremonies. Can we really trust this guarantee after seeing that the judge in this case and other cases have said? Seems like their decisions could equally apply to churches…

    1. Yup, I remember seeing right here on Reason’s comments people talking about gay rights and asking how long until a baker is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple. One more reason for Government to get out of the wedding business altogether.

      1. Again. A case of the slippery slope actually happening. Of course they will force a Church to perform the act. They force them to provide contraception against their will don’t they?

        Whenever a leftist who supports government intervention in private affairs under the bull shit of “equality” (which usually means forcing someone else to do something against their will) they tend to at the same time tell skeptics their crazy or paranoid when they object.

        Yet, the consequences warned against usually do happen.

        Hence, don’t trust a leftist – ever.

    2. “Can we really trust this guarantee after seeing that the judge in this case and other cases have said?”

      Interesting question I’ve heard since the New Mexico case. It seems to me that forcing churches to conduct gay ceremonies is inevitable based on the current path of the left. Obviously they don’t want to say it now since it would be bad PR, but it’ll happen.

      And my response to anyone I come across who’ll insist that it won’t happen, I’ll just say “well, they also promised that if you liked your current health plan you could keep it, but we all know how that’s turning out”

  12. The same Christian baker is likely a law and order type who thinks the purchase of sexual gratification should be illegal, pot smokers should be imprisoned, and society in general is immoral and should be held to a higher standard through draconian social intervention. It looks like in this case the draconian social intervention has come back to bite them perversely.

    1. And you base all these assumptions off of what exactly?

      For all you know he might be a libertarian who just happens to be a Christian and happens to find homosexuality immoral.

    2. Absolute projection and speculation.

      1. I know the bible quite well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.